06 June 2012 2:18 PM

What is so Good about Democracy? What’s wrong with ‘Libertarianism’? And who has the right to review what?

Again and again, in articles and discussion programmes, I hear the phrase ‘democratically-elected’ used as if it is a synonym for ‘automatically good’. Thus, whatever one might say about the Queen, a President would be ‘democratically-elected’. And so he would in some way be more legitimate than any other head of state.

Why do people believe this? What reason do they have to believe it? Has it proved to be reliable in human history?

Contrary to the beliefs of most, neither of the two great free civilisations in the world have any principled attachment to being mass (let alone universal) suffrage democracies. The original U.S. Constitution says very little indeed about voting, which was left to the individual states. The founding fathers of the USA would have been appalled by the idea of it. That is one reason why they built their capital (whose long prospects and wide avenues were I think designed to make it easy to put down revolution with grapeshot) in the remote swamps on the Potomac to avoid the dangers (which they much feared ) of mob rule.

In many parts of the early USA, the principle of ‘no representation without taxation” which is after all the corollary of “no taxation without representation”) meant only 70% of adult males qualified for the vote. This proportion grew during the mid-19th century , largely because political parties wanted to expand the market for their lies and promises. Secret ballots did not come to the USA till the late 19th century. As for the USA’s slave and freed slave population, largely black-skinned, we all know how recently they were allowed the vote in reality.

The US Senate was specifically designed to be protected from ‘the fury of democracy’, hence the fact that Senators have much longer terms in office than members of the House of Representatives. Until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which faced strong and honourable opposition from several leading figures, U.S. Senators were not in any case elected by popular vote, but chosen by their state’s legislatures.

The USA of course has a third (wholly unelected) chamber of government, the Supreme Court, which is in many ways more powerful than either the House, the Senate or the Presidency. Many of the most radical changes in American life, notably the legalising of abortion, have been brought about by this body. I suspect that left-wingers would be alarmed at any suggestion that it should be democratically elected.

Britain’s reformers, likewise, were far from keen on the rule of the masses. Cromwell loathed (and executed ) the Levellers. The great factions of the 18th and early 19th centuries were not remotely democratic. The freedom and order of this country were largely the result of an adversarial parliament (in both Houses), Jury trial, the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and the Habeas Corpus Act (see my ‘Abolition of Liberty’ for details of this, unless you feel unable to ready my books, in which case, take my word for it).

Mass suffrage democracy, when it actually came about, was, to begin with anyway, an advantage for the Tory Party which – in the days before the dismantling of marriage – could rely on the women’s vote as being solidly socially conservative. This paradox has now come to an end, but it has always made me laugh.

Have we benefited from mass suffrage? In one very important way, we have suffered terribly from it. In what must be one of his most prophetic statements, Winston Churchill warned the House of Commons on 13th May 1901 that ‘the wars of peoples will be more terrible than the wars of kings’ .

His prediction was borne out with great speed. Surely any thoughtful person must be struck with a cold feeling round the heart when he reads Aldous Huxley’s 1947 preface to ‘Brave New World’ and comes across this passage: ‘But meanwhile we are in the first phase of what is perhaps the penultimate revolution. Its next phase may be atomic warfare, in which case we do not have to bother with prophecies about the future. But it is conceivable that we may have enough sense, if not to stop fighting altogether, at least to behave as rationally as did our eighteenth-century ancestors. The unimaginable horrors of the Thirty Years War actually taught men a lesson, and for more than a hundred years the politicians and generals of Europe consciously resisted the temptation to use their military resources to the limits of destructiveness or (in the majority of conflicts) to go on fighting until the enemy was totally annihilated. They were aggressors, of course, greedy for profit and glory; but they were also conservatives, determined at all costs to keep their world intact, as a going concern. For the last thirty years there have been no conservatives; there have been only nationalistic radicals of the right and nationalistic radicals of the left. The last conservative statesman was the fifth Marquess of Lansdowne; and when he wrote a letter to the Times, suggesting that the First World War should be concluded with a compromise, as most of the wars of the eighteenth century had been, the editor of that once conservative journal refused to print it. The nationalistic radicals had their way, with the consequences that we all know --Bolshevism, Fascism, inflation, depression, Hitler, the Second World War, the ruin of Europe and all but universal famine.’

The ‘nationalistic radicals’ were of course democrats, including Churchill himself. They had made a popular, democratic case for war to stimulate recruitment and to permit the high taxation and general ruin and regimentation which the war involved. But they could not in the end control the 'democratic' patriotic monster they had created, and dared not end the war, even once it was clear that it would be a disaster to continue it.

Nuclear weapons, by promising a repeat of the 30 Years War with knobs on, restrained the warmongering populist tendency for a while. But when the Cold war ended they were quick to find new battlefields, as they strove to impose ‘democracy’ on the planet with fire and the sword. It is public opinion and 'democracy' which are being swayed, by 'democratic' TV reports into supporting the next war, an intervention in Syria.

Huxley’s statement (in 1947) that ‘for the last 30 years there have been no conservatives; there have been only nationalistic radicals of the right and nationalistic radicals of the left’ is even more prophetic than Churchill’s. How else could Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan be regarded as conservatives? Theyb got away with it only because real conservatives had died out.

Personally, as I examine the record of ‘democratically-elected’ rulers across the world, my Cromwellian head begins to be ruled by my Royalist heart, and I start to see the point of giving the headship of the state to the Lord’s Anointed, provided it can be combined with the rule of law, an adversarial parliament, the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Jury Trial and Habeas Corpus (in short, the 1689 settlement rightly known as the Glorious Revolution).

As for ‘democracy’, how is it morally reliable or creditable to grant the ultimate power to political parties? It is these that, in any democracy, actually control access to the legislature. They are controlled by the executive, bought by rich interests, impermeable to the public will. Don’t believe me? Try to become an MP and see what happens. Even primary elections, on the face of it a good idea, can now easily be purchased by millions (see the recent triumph of Mitt Romney, beloved by no-one but also outspent by nobody).

The trite conclusion, now a cliche, is that democracy is the worst of all systems, except for the others. The implied suggestion is that we must have this disreputable fraud, or subject ourselves to Hitler, Mussolini, the Chinese Communist Party , Stalin or Ceausescu. But I don’t think that is really the choice at all.

I tend to think that the systems of government of Britain and the USA, before universal suffrage, were far better at delivering ordered liberty , peace and prosperity (the ultimate aims of any government) than their modern successors.

*****

Next, a word on why I always put ‘libertarian’ in inverted commas. Most thinking humans, in our post-Christian world , yearn for a universal touchstone of goodness which will somehow substitute for the Christian faith. For some it is the market, for some it is ‘liberty’, for others it is equality. It is easily demonstrable that the market sometimes, even often, lays waste valuable things, destroys customs and taboos, tosses aside human feelings. It is obvious to the slowest thinker that ( as Karl Marx pointed out) the freedom of all is impossible, as it will lead to conflicts between groups who wish to be free to do something which tramples on the freedom of another. ‘No man fights freedom’, wrote the sage of Trier, ’He fights at most the freedom of others’. Well, exactly. The trouble with these ideas is that they simply lack the universal power over all humanity of the Sermon on the Mount and the Commandments, and that they are based on a desire for power, rather than on Christianity’s preference for love, and its central suspicion of power and the mob, as so graphically set out in the story of the Passion. And sometimes I think a little light mockery is the best way to make people think. After all, one day they may realise that it is possible they are mistaken.

****

And finally a few thoughts on why someone who chooses to call my books ‘drivel’ (yet now admits he hasn’t even read one of them, because he found it too hard) can reasonably be asked if he has any work of his own which we can see, to see if he is qualified to say so. I didn’t stop him saying so, or censor or disallow his post. I allow all kinds of people to post the most astonishing rubbish about me here. I just questioned his qualification.

Actually, had he made a TV programme, exhibited a painting or produced a play, or done any creative thing involving the public giving of himself, he would be qualified to have a view. I tend to think, having written and presented four TV programmes and written five books (four published, one to come out in the autumn) that I have risked myself in the public square and can therefore pronounce on other people’s works. As it happens, I seldom write bad reviews of books (I make exceptions where their authors are self-serving political figures, who are not primarily authors). If I am sent a book which I think is really bad, I generally decline to write a review at all. My criticisms of films are essentially dissents from universal praise, and I believe that they are informed and thoughtful and that some readers have found them helpful.

What is the purpose of criticisms of such things, by the way? It varies. In the case of Philip Pullman’s children’s books, I wished to warn parents that the stories are propaganda. In the case of the recent film ‘The King’s Speech’, I wished to ensure that the film’s severe deviation from historical truth was placed on record, because of a fear that it would (as historical fiction on film often does) become the accepted version of a historical incident. I thought the mangling of ‘Tinker Tailor’ in the Gary Oldman film (and the comparable mangling of ‘Goodbye Mr Chips’ in a recent TV version) illuminated our cultural decline and the working methods of the cultural revolution.

I like to think that I can tell the truth in plain English, even where it will get me disliked. But I think I would hesitate to come to a writer’s weblog, cloddishly and blatantly misrepresent his views, and - when patiently invited to discover what those views actually are - to dismiss his books as ‘drivel’ to his face, not having made any serious effort to read or understand those books. If I have done anything comparable here, I regret it. But I don’t think I have.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joshua Wooderson - in regard to your specific question about healthcare
(excuse my first post with the 3rd paragraph being copy/pasted in error)

I would be happy for the current government funding to continue because I am not convinced that replacing a state backed insurance scheme with two/three dominant private insurance companies is an answer. But it is clear that the healthcare system as a whole, and the medical and drug companies in particular, act at the expense, and not the benefit of the individual. Costs must be lowered and health institutions should be reformed.

Drug patents are anti-competitive and artificially increase drug prices (patents are an example of an ‘economic rent’, granting an exclusivity which should not exist in a system that was competitive). A licensing system would produce cheaper drugs and offer longer term contracts to the research company - say for 50 years instead of the current 20 years.

Institutionally - transfer much of the BMA responsibilities to a local guild system – sounds old fashioned – but such guild bodies are better able to organise themselves for local provision and to provide services to the public (much/all of the local heath authority function could also be performed by these guilds). This needn’t be a ‘closed-shop’ and different guilds might ‘compete’ with each other, and their members could move to other local guilds if they so wished. The principle behind ‘guilds vs specialist national authorities, such as the BMA, is that national bodies are biased in representing the needs of their own professional members, sometimes at the expense of the wider public. Such bodies cannot wear two hats and if they are focused on ‘trade union type’ duties (like the Police Federation is), they are almost certainly acting against the interests of the patient. For example, the BMA is very slow to change. Only recently did it agree changes to doctor training such that non-surgical psychiatrist trainees should no longer have to study surgery. The effect is that 2-years training is removed from the degree syllabus. Also, other restrictive practices continue, often at detrimentally large cost. i.e. job demarcations and working processes exist within hospitals, often only for reasons of professional prestige (hospital managers were taken on to resolve these issues, but they have proven ineffective against the powerful BMA).

Local guilds for professionals, trades or other groupings would be better suited for organising and delivering services for their community, but this system could only work effectively if independent of government, so ‘big government’ would need to be ‘cut down to size’ and much of its responsibilities transferred and performed locally.

In terms of welfare – its a big problem – but I believe the real sticky problem is low paying jobs. A new system of commerce and mutualist economics would resolve this. Bye the way, the state education system is very ripe for reform - its very expensive for the depressingly small tangible benefits it produces for this country.

To address the problem of dominant players which skewer the market to their own benefit, and to rebalance the wealth in our economy, one solution is to apply taxes on asset classes termed ‘economic rent’ (technical term not relating to contract rents/leases; economic rent is due to an exclusivity and does not exist in economies working in perfect competition). Most taxes distort the market (i.e. vat distorts consumption), but the crucial point about taxing these assets is that there is no adverse affect on consumption nor production. In practice, this would mostly involve taxing the value of land; other examples of economic rent are road tolls, pollution, patents.

Such a tax could be implemented similar to the council tax, easy to administer and it could/would operate locally and its benefits would be seen locally (democratic and community benefit). However, it would be based on the land value itself and not on the utility or use of that land. So in locations where there was economic activity and land values were rising, the tax revenue would increase. The principle behind this is that the community (residential or commercial) that are receiving the benefit of any re-development, pay more in return for these improvements to their environment. The mechanics of the system would prevent any rapid increase for residential properties, but I couldn’t really see the problem in having large increases over time. Residents could move away from the re-developed area if they couldn’t afford the new taxes. In effect this would mean downsizing or perhaps moving a mile or so away and although commercial re-valuations would be done, say every two-years, residential re-valuations could be done every ten years, so no rapid financial impact would be forced on those individuals that couldn’t afford the new taxes.

Bye the way, on the ‘The phoney outrage of Emily Thornberry…’ thread, I have over the last few days posted to Mev comments regarding the type of changes that could be implemented in order to create a mutualist economy. Unfortunately Mev believes that my ideas are too intrusive and interfere in the ‘free market’, which he also believes, rather depressingly, to be a dynamic and self organising system which will moderate and repair itself in terms of most deficiency or excess.

Joshua Wooderson, thanks for the question about tax, if I may, I’d like to preface my answer. The more I’ve come to understand about the current and future state of our perilous economy and of our ‘half-baked’ undemocratic political system - the more I appreciate the need for radical change. And events over recent weeks with the Barclays scandal, and even the NatWest software problem, have helped crystalise things for me. So, although flat rate taxes, and higher rate consumption taxes could be used as interim measures, the rich would still be able to ‘hide’ income in limited companies, etc., so why fight against a losing battle - the clever accountants will be able to come up with ideas to continue denying the tax man.

All taxes distort the market or the ‘asset’ being taxed. Simple supply and demand dictates that the higher the cost, the lower is the demand. But more importantly, taxes often have unintended effects on a market, and moreover, it is usually only the big companies, that can either ignore, or sometimes even benefit (using longer-term strategies, loss-leaders, etc) from such distortions in the marketplace.

Large companies ‘externalise their costs’, which basically means that they enjoy a benefit, of say the road network, without paying the full cost of it (particularly as their large lorries cause most of the damage and repair cost). The argument that the price of goods would rise as a result of such charges is a misleading one because only the large companies would be charged, and so to remain competitive, they would have to absorb the charges. Also, the greater net benefit would be to generate more local jobs. I think also that many would be surprised that locally produced and supplied goods can be produced at very little extra cost, especially when using today’s new technologies.

Btw, If the problem of climate change is real - I am not at all confident that scientists can adequately predict its future impact and therefore the policies required in order to solve the whole problem. If there is a crises headed our way, it will be solved technologically, so for example, ‘artificial trees’ that absorb and store carbon dioxide are currently being developed. As for the sinking pacific islands - is anyone today seriously mooting spending billions/trillions in order to save those islands? Western sentimentalism at its worst. The islands are very beutiful, but where is the logic in the West adopting green policies which will only help to cripple their economies? It is a dilemma, but China, evan though it is beginning to implement its own green policy, is still set to complete a coal power station every week and an airport every month until at least 2020.

A Libertarian – I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means. It's just that some conspiracy isn't the subject of theory – it's established fact. That it's understood that it happens doesn't stop it from being a conspiracy (albeit not a particularly secret one, if that's not too oxymoronic). However, on the whole I certainly agree that one needn't resort to conspiracy to explain the various failings of the political system.

You've explained which reforms you'd make in the short term to go about creating a mutualist economy, particularly those involving the tax system, and as you know I have some sympathy with your suggestions. I'm also interested, though, in which reforms you'd make to state-centred economic mechanisms. What would a mutualist healthcare system look like, for example, or welfare?

On another note, I share your scepticism about climate change and the environmentalist movement. But I don't consider myself scientifically qualified to come to any definitive conclusion about the validity of various claims about global warming and so on.

Not only are there vested financial interests on both sides (as I'm sure you'll admit), but people's position on the issue falls very clearly in line with their political ideology. In my exploration of the libertarian blogosphere, I've come across only one person who accepted the existence of (or necessity of combating) AGW – he, incidentally, seemed to share your views on economics. And it concerns me that for many ideology might inform fact, rather than vice versa.

Joshua Wooderson, whether left/right wing conspiracies actually exist or whether we are the repeated victims throughout history of what are ostensibly ‘just’ criminal groupings - the Russian mafia being the latest example - is debatable. Personally, I subscribe more to the cock-up theory, rather than conspiracies (apart from the JFK one of course!). If we understand what is happening, then it ceases to be a conspiracy, so things like big-business lobbying is not conspiratorial – it is understood that it happens and why. There might be a conspiracy of silence or perhaps just lazy thinking about our capitalist system and how it works ‘against’ the individual. But it is so intertwined with our political system that it is difficult to fathom.

I prefer to keep things practical. So, to free ourselves from our ‘political economy’ - it was referred to thus up to 100 years ago because there was a realisation that the two worked hand in hand - we need to identify an economic model that is equitable, stable and centred on the individual. I believe that the solution is a form of capitalism (mutualism perhaps?). But not ‘free market’ capitalism that allows wealth to concentrate in the hands of the few. In many ways, this is to return to how things used to operate. Unfortunately this is a difficult thing to achieve or even discuss because liberal ‘progressive’ types have portrayed such cherry-picking of things that worked from our past as some form of witchcraft and the advocator should be jeered at as though suggesting a return to the water-wheel - not a good example perhaps, because such technology would be allowed into polite discussion because it is now deemed ‘environmental’. In fact, environmentalism could be seen as a particular success of the business lobby machine where the agenda has been turned into a ‘race to save the planet’ and where active policies seem to revolve around global tax/investment/research schemes – all of which are sponsored by big business.

Libertarian government seems to offer win-win solutions. It seems to me that we are (willing?) victims of statist government political thought and practice. But crucially, it is becoming very apparent how close the ‘state socialist’ Chinese system is to our Western ‘state capitalism’ model – they are moving closer to one another and will be indistinguishable by mid-century. Both seek to control the citizen and both operate a command economy. The elites in each system currently exist in the form of technocrats in China and wealthy individuals in the West, but I suspect that as the two systems converge, a safe place will be found for the Western billionaires – and in fact, China is already very accommodating of their own wealthy.

Joshua Wooderson, I'm not defending the Bible as part of a sales job to get you to buy it. I am only asking you to not misrepresent it to yourself and others on the basis of false information. I expect that you would still reject it even if you understood all of it.

“In what context would condoning slavery be acceptable? None, as far as I can see.”

I agree, except that in this case it is God's doing not man's. Please understand that He condoned it only for conquered enemy and alien peoples in Old Testament times on the same principle that He condoned the introduction of death to the world, mandated genocide, and promised eternal damnation in the New Testament: as punishment for the wicked. He never said that slavery in itself was good or acceptable for His nation. You can protest it in all contexts along with death, genocide and hell, but you'll have to take it up with Him.

“Exodus 21, which I've mentioned, permits a slave-owner to beat his slave to death provided that he doesn't die immediately, because ' he is his property.' ”

This is why I warned you about about translations and insisted on context. Here, a better term for slave is bond-servant or servant and the word for property is literally “money”. Here it is in the Authorised Version:

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. [Exodus 21:20-21]

It prohibits the master from dealing out a fatal beating, yet clearly also gives him the option to give out harsh corporal punishment “to within an inch of his life”. On the other side of the ledger, the maximum term of service was 7 years or less, the servant had to enter into it voluntarily, and sustaining a permanent injury would result in his immediate release. Best of all, he could run away at his own discretion and demand the best available quarters in the city while waiting out his term.

“Given that Jesus was able to foresee that abortion would be a problem in future, I don't see why it would have been so difficult to add something to the effect that the unborn are not to be killed.”

And throw in explicit rules against crystal meth and Internet phishing while he was at it? He told a Roman governor that His “kingdom is not of this world”. (It will be later.) By the way, check out the next 2 verses after Exodus 21:21: God prescribed capital punishment for killing the unborn.

“Is it not true, anyway, that exposure of newborns was widespread in ancient Greece – in which case an injunction against it might have been appropriate anyway?”

Julia Fenton – The Right Wing Conspiracy theory is not entirely baseless. Without a doubt there is an unhealthy relationship between big business and government (as A Libertarian will probably explain better than I can). And politicians are, in my view, far too ready to apply the Daily Mail test in the process of policy deliberation. That's not to deny that politicians are the problem.

What I would suggest, however, is that it's not only the nature of our leadership that is at fault; it is, as you say, its influence and power. Any form of government is likely to be corrupt and incompetent in the absence of clear checks on its power, and I see no reason to think differently in the case of an aristocratic elite (the lack of accountability would surely make matters worse).

Most people don't want high taxes or a soft approach to crime, so it's absurd to attribute these to democracy. Perhaps people are reluctant to relinquish public sector services, but that's only because they can see no alternative – because, in fact, the government feeds the lie that they need more of it in their lives.

For me, I should say, democracy is only a means to an end – namely, a small, unobtrusive state. If some aristocrat could guarantee this, then I would be happy for him (or her) to rule. But I think it unlikely.

The context defence I find unconvincing. In what context would condoning slavery be acceptable? None, as far as I can see. And it's untrue to say that 'God has always recognized slavery as an evil'. Exodus 21, which I've mentioned, permits a slave-owner to beat his slave to death provided that he doesn't die immediately, because ' he is his property.' That seems pretty unequivocal to me.

Given that Jesus was able to foresee that abortion would be a problem in future, I don't see why it would have been so difficult to add something to the effect that the unborn are not to be killed. Is it not true, anyway, that exposure of newborns was widespread in ancient Greece – in which case an injunction against it might have been appropriate anyway?

I've just bookmarked this page, though, as you can probably tell from the delay in my reply, I'd forgotten about this discussion, buried away as it is.

Julia Fenton, I still maintain that you are arguing for ‘technocratic’ government and not ‘aristocratic’. Yes, the dictionary does indeed state that aristocratic can include for appointees, but those appointees would be mere cronies and freinds. Whereas technocrats are appointed experts - and that is surely what you are arguing for?

Your point about the ‘semi-democracy of Singapore’ (a well known business technocracy?) doing well is accurate enough - but that has more to do with it being able to offer a specialist global banking function and it has greatly prospered from this – so it is the global capital which it has attracted in recent times that has made it rich. And although the country has an international image of being free of corruption, this is not strictly true. For implicit in most everyday activities within the country, it is accepted that bribes are necessary in order to get anything done in a reasonable time frame and to jump to the top of the queue. Also, the wealth of its inhabitants is very unequal so its not all good. More recently, because of its burgeoning middle class and their westernised aspirations, the government is having to introduce ‘more democracy’ into the system. This also includes the introduction of more social welfare programmes. It seems to me that in the not too distant future, Singapore will look much like any European country.

However, whether it be democracy, aristocracy or technocracy, these systems tend toward building a political Tower of Babel that will one day fail. This is because their root problem is economic - our current so called free market economics is supply-side driven and can only be sustained by ever increasing GDP, and by artificially stimulating consumer demand. This can only be funded by more and huge national debt because the system is global and there is no mechanism for balancing the books. Newspapaer headlines, such as ‘we are living beyond our means’ and ‘corporations are not paying their taxes’ is really only a symptom and not the cause of our economic problems. Our current capitalist system is broke and needs rapid and fundamental overhaul.

JW. Alas eternal vigilance has not saved us from our current predicament. It's not that people are not vigilant - it's rather that they are taught to prioritise the wrong things. Conventional wisdom says that America is run by an Axis of bankers, mega-corporations and evangelical Christians, all of whom control the government even when it is notionally run by good guys like Obama. Meanwhile our own government gets all of its policies from the right-wing press.

The reason this wisdom is conventional is that it is exactly what the establishment would like the people to think. It is easy to misdirect people, and get them to look the wrong way. We may think we are smart because we know how our country "really" works. In fact we are simply believing what we have been told, never questioning why exactly the Right Wing Conspiracy would allow us to be told it.

Of course there really are greedy bankers, evil CEOs and corrupt evangelists. But their influence and power pales in comparison to USG.

You're right that there are benefits if "citizens feel as though they have some control over political decision-making". But they should on no account be allowed to actually have that control, because they will certainly be used as pawns. I do not think that such a state is really stable. The process of bending the mass mind to serve some purpose is not a pleasant one. I am particularly disgusted by the current (successful) attempt to win popular support for interventionist war in Syria.

One further point. You talk about democracy as if it brings prosperity and peace. Does it? It seems rather to bring oversized and incompetent government, high taxes and lots and lots of crime. In short, the very opposite of peace and prosperity. Meanwhile, semi-democracies like Singapore seem to be doing well.

A Libertarian. I'm using the dictionary definition of aristocracy, as in "government by an elite". But the idea here is certainly much more like absolute monarchy than constitutional monarchy.

You are right that biological succession can lead to instability. That is why it is important that the aristocratic institution be adoptive and rely on rulers to nominate successors. This would be a meritocratic system, as in a company. Think about Steve Jobs and Tim Cook. The current ruler, and the successor, must both have a strong personal interest in the continued success of the country.

Even with the disadvantages of biological succession (I think particularly of King George III and his deadbeat son) the system still has the edge over democracy in terms of quality of government. At least the management is half-way effective, half-way competent. If the king is insane or useless, the kingdom is run by his servants. Rather them than "the people", or rather the con-men, actors and advertising executives that "the people" will "choose" at election time.

Living as we do, we have a very limited understanding of how much better things could be if the government was replaced by an effective organisation. It is not normal to live in a high-crime, high-tax society in which the public services are awful and everyone is constantly blasted with propaganda about the alleged effectiveness of democracy and the "human right" to choose a government.

Julia Fenton – No system of government is an entirely stable state of affairs, hence the famous dictum that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And it may be that Marx was onto something in thinking that there's a certain historical inevitability about recurrent revolution (although unlike him I don't believe there's any natural end point of history).

However, it seems to me to be obvious that a system under which citizens feel as though they have some control over political decision-making, and are free, as far as possible, from state interference, is more stable than one governed by a single, unaccountable leader. It's surely no coincidence that the most peaceful and prosperous countries at present should be predominantly liberal free market democracies. Popular movements have, after all, always been in the direction of greater liberty and independence from the state.

Your example of new democracies collapsing into civil war I don't think is a particularly helpful one, as you seem to acknowledge. The sudden imposition of democracy by outside forces is unlikely to be anybody's model for the ideal form of governance.

And if you look at two of the most striking recent examples of democracies that have been superseded by dictatorships – the Weimar Republic and Russia's pre-Soviet Provisional Government – both were fledgling governments following a long period of rule by authoritarian regimes. I can think of few examples of well-established democracies (though no doubt there are some) that have been overthrown and replaced by dictatorships.

On your analogy with businesses, I would agree that unwieldy bureaucracies with many people responsible for many different tasks is a recipe for disaster. That's partly why I favour small government. However, the idea of a benign, omni-competent aristocratic ruler has little basis in reality, I fear. At least those in charge of businesses have generally risen to the top meritocratically, whereas it's in the nature of aristocracy that this isn't the case.

Thucydides' most recent question only just appeared for me - sorry for any delay in replying. I think I also lost a post here a few days ago. (This Typepad blog software does seem a bit long in the tooth now; sometimes you can feel it creaking.)

Answers. Who are the aristos? The closest equivalent at present would be high-ranking civil servants. These people are picked by their predecessors and groomed for their roles. They cannot be deposed except by the collapse of the government, or a palace coup. Anyone can decide they are no good, but this has no effect, because all of their bad decisions can currently be blamed on politicians.

In a more honest system, these aristos would be much well-known, and would consequently have both power and responsibility. They would still be nominated by their predecessors. They would still be almost impossible to depose. But they would be to blame for their bad decisions. There would be pressure to make good decisions.

These questions are indeed fundamental. I hope my answers are satisfactory in the sense that they are honest. But of course, they sound pretty unpleasant to people who have been trained from birth to believe in democracy. There is nothing to be done about this. They sound a lot less horrible when you come to terms with the facts that (a) we don't have democracy right now, and (b) we would be worse off if we did, but that's a hard sell, and in reality the people are no more likely to give up their (worthless) votes than they are to give up their money.

Julia Fenton, you state that: ‘The aristocratic model’s stability is evidenced by history’.

In what way would you consider it stable? Historically, succession could be very hit or miss (particularly across most of Europe where, unlike in Britain where inherited wealth goes to the eldest son, in Europe wealth would be divided between sons and so resulting in subsequent ‘frictions’ within a generation or two); also separate kingdoms would regularly go to war over territorial/trade disputes; not to mention that living under such regimes, particularly in eastern Europe, wasn’t exactly pleasant.

I assume that you are not referring to the constitutional monarchies, which existed across Europe by the turn of the 20th century - because those monarchies did not actually govern anything. Before then, in the 18th and 19th Centuries, monarchies did have power, but the citizenry were at the mercy and at the whim of the ruling aristocrats/kings - but where is the upside?

Perhaps you are arguing for the ‘modern technocratic’ (not aristocratic) figurehead, such as has been installed into Greece and Italy recently? I still think that such systems are peculiarly prone to failure in terms of corruption. That is why I favour small, localised systems - libertarian and based upon mutualism economics - the building blocks of which are human one-to-one relationships.

(In terms of Syria and Libya - new democracies are usually bourn out of civil wars - typically the worst type of conflict; as was our very own English Civil War - and so violence is to be expected.)

Joshua Wooderson continues, “but the fact that certain sections of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, openly condone slavery. If the intention of Jesus' teachings was to sow the seeds for emancipation, why do they so conflict with earlier commandments?”

I think that you misconstrue both parts of your argument. There is no inconsistency. God has always recognized slavery as an evil. That's why He forbade it among His own people when setting forth their laws, e.g. “If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die ; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 24:7) That's why He condoned it just for the enemies of His people along with their genocidal punishments. (By the way, when you read about slavery in the Old Testament, you have to be careful to distinguish between a slave and bond servant; various translations can cause confusion about this.) I imagine that Jesus, being able to foresee the future, knew that He was sowing seeds for future legal emancipation in parts of the world, but that was surely only a secondary consideration to His Gospel of eternal spiritual emancipation offered to the whole world.

“If you're comfortable with the idea that God wanted Israelites executed for what seem fairly minor infractions, then there's little more that I can say."

I don't feel comfortable about that, but I accept its necessity in its context because what you consider minor infractions in your personal context were major crimes during a tribal covenant with God in which holiness had to be kept pure. Nevertheless, witchcraft, homosexuality, adultery, disobedience to parents, and breathing are all still major crimes in God's eyes even today where we are. The difference now is that God has paid for these sins by sacrificing and resurrecting the second person of Himself.

If you have been the father of young children, your initial reaction might have been disappointment: “Rats, these little monsters are impossible!” But that law, given in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, gives context to Jesus' seemingly revolutionary Parable of the Prodigal Son: the father's extreme forgiveness must have shocked many in His audience in that incredibly religious society. However, when one considers both, the parable does not contradict the law but complements it.

How do you navigate to these topics that fall of end of the index on the first page of the blog? I'm bookmarking this now.

Joshua Wooderson, as I said, I think that you need a dispensational perspective on Scripture, i.e. put its different parts in context by era.

“It seems odd to me to suppose that conservative religious teachings on homosexuality would have no impact on the law, but, as you say, we can only speculate.”

If conservative teaching does have an impact on acceptance of such a draconian bill in Uganda, it would have to be because it was getting misconstrued somehow. Proper conservative doctrines interpret the Bible both literally and in context.

“Equally, it seems odd that Jesus should have had nothing to say about issues like abortion, if it is as important as you make out. He was perfectly happy to comment on divorce and adultery, and that, I would have thought, was hardly a political issue that would have alarmed the Romans.”

But abortion was not a significant issue anywhere then, at least anywhere I'm aware of. And what would He have needed to add, anyway? “Thou shalt not murder” alone covers it.

“What I object to most, however, is not the silence of the Gospels on burning moral issues – inexplicable though this is to me – “

Why is this inexplicable for some of them? The Bible is not a political manifesto for world governance. What it does is predict that when Christ returns He will govern the world “with a rod of iron” from Jerusalem with His reconstituted nation of Israel, and that's when such a manifesto, of which The Sermon on the Mount is only a small part, will come into play. Currently, we are living in the Church era. It may be a bonus when the Church gets to dominate a society, but its default condition in this era is to be a minority, often persecuted.

JW. It wouldn't *certainly* collapse into civil war. But whatever happens, it would not remain "minimal, non-coercive [and] genuinely democratic" because this is not a stable state of affairs. The government would therefore decay into some other state. Probably, like every Western government, it would officially continue to be a minimal, non-coercive democracy, while ensuring that these "principles" never interfered with its operation.

It's not really too controversial to say that organisations work better if they have a single person making (or delegating) decisions, with responsibility for all of them. Successful companies all work that way. The aristocratic model's stability is evidenced by history.

But, new democracies do have a very high chance of collapsing into civil war. This is perhaps something to do with how they are created, as they are now always imposed by the "international community" on some unfortunate soon-to-be third-world country, rather than being created from an aristocracy as a result of a long and ever-incomplete series of concessions.

I find it hard to appreciate just how horrible Syria, Libya etc. must be right now. It's particularly horrible because progressive types (like myself) are responsible for it, and continue to support it, and are totally uninterested in the fact that the small amount of influence they wield is continuing to wreck the lives of ordinary people who were unlucky enough to live in the wrong part of the world. Our idea of what constitutes "progress" is completely broken.

It seems odd to me to suppose that conservative religious teachings on homosexuality would have no impact on the law, but, as you say, we can only speculate.

Equally, it seems odd that Jesus should have had nothing to say about issues like abortion, if it is as important as you make out. He was perfectly happy to comment on divorce and adultery, and that, I would have thought, was hardly a political issue that would have alarmed the Romans.

What I object to most, however, is not the silence of the Gospels on burning moral issues – inexplicable though this is to me – but the fact that certain sections of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, openly condone slavery. If the intention of Jesus' teachings was to sow the seeds for emancipation, why do they so conflict with earlier commandments?

If you're comfortable with the idea that God wanted Israelites executed for what seem fairly minor infractions, then there's little more that I can say. My initial reaction, I have to say, to your assurance that 'disobedient “children” didn't mean little kids but youths of accountable age' was not, 'Oh, that's fine then!'

Joshua Wooderson writes, “I would be very surprised, though, if Christian teaching (or a distortion of it, if you prefer) hadn't been used to legitimise these attitudes and give them greater support than perhaps they would otherwise have had.”

You and I don't know and can only speculate. As I was trying to say, since the vast majority of Christians there are affiliated with one of several mainstream international denominations which could not support such a law, I doubt that the bulk of the people would be using much Biblical justification for it. But maybe I'm wrong.

“Given that slavery was, as you say, tacitly accepted in the New Testament, it seems strange that Jesus should not have thought to condemn it at some point. It might have brought the slave trade to a halt centuries earlier.”

No, it's not strange to me. As I said, the New Testament has nothing directly to say to future Christian governments. It doesn't say anything explicit about what is the worst social evil to me, worse than slavery: foeticide (i.e. abortion). It concentrates on personal sin and our relationships with each other and God. I suspect that inserting some kind of political manifesto would have distracted from the more important message of eternal freedom offered to every individual in the world, enabling the Gospel's enemies to justly accuse Christians of wanting to overthrow contemporary rulers at that time. As it turns out, when governments of Christian nations arose and the issues became current, plenty of what we want eventually fell out of revolutionary assertions like, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” [NASV]

No, it *was* holy not to wish but to *execute* all such ancient Israelites because, as members of a nation specially chosen to represent Him, who were thoroughly indoctrinated on what He expected of them from childhood, to be any of those things was to explicitly defy Him and choose sin. (By the way, disobedient “children” didn't mean little kids but youths of accountable age, likely 20+ years old.) For those of us who are godless individuals in contemporary Britain and Canada, the New Testament actually has a scarier message on holiness: repent for being just your normal, natural, unholy self or burn in hell forever.

Julia Fenton, I agree that libertarianism is difficult to define, it is (too) wide ranging and it also doesn’t help that (too) much of it is dominated by free market apologists. This is probably much to do with it being non-tribal - so there does appear to be nearly as much libertarian theory as there are converts!

However, I do think that our current capitalist system is defunct and that there should be real debate about what replaces it. This is not mere speculation or utopian wishful thinking and I do fear that a ‘Bretton Woods part deaux’ will force upon us a new deal that will merely allow the current money masters to continue to dominate/become even more powerful. It doesn’t have to be this way, and for example, Greece will need to reinvent its domestic commercial system and some are talking seriously about implementing there a mutualism economic system. Prior to experiencing the good/bad of the free market, Greece had a long socialist history, so perhaps its recent shock will make it an ideal place for such experiment.

I admit to requiring a ‘mechanism’ to ensure an equitable social and economic environment for individuals to prosper. Prospering in the sense that people can lead free and independent lives - not referring exclusively to monetary reward. I take your point that all systems can break. But this needn’t be such a concern if the system was based on localised economics and small businesses and where there would be no risk of a global banking crisis. Employee owned companies similar to John Lewis could be encouraged. There are different business models, such as ‘community interest companies’ which function like a ltd company, but where the assets and profits are ‘locked in’ to the community. Larger organisations, such as mutualised banks could exist as they did before. More radical steps could be taken by introducing legislation and taxes that favour small business.

But on the point you raised about risk and system failure - don’t you think that putting power into the hands of aristocrats, experts even, however good and moral these people might be, would be prone to failure in terms of corruption? In fact, I’d suggest that over the long term, all top-down systems are particularly prone to this. That is why I favour localised systems (based around mutualism economics) - the building blocks of which are human one-to-one relationships. Libertarian politics seeks to minimise control systems, so any threats of war and revolt, due to a system failure or a crisis would be minimised. There would also be little need for self-serving centralised bureaucracies.

Julia Fenton - I find your suggestion that a libertarian (i.e. minimal, non-coercive, genuinely democratic) government would be met by civil war and revolution, while an unelected aristocratic elite would be a stable form of governance, an intriguing one. Would you mind explaining why exactly this is?

CD – Marriage was not, as I remember, an example I brought up, which is why I didn't find your answer particularly satisfying. I'd be interested to know what reasons you can give for the long list of capital crimes in the Old Testament (collecting sticks on the Sabbath, for instance).

'Try to figure out the diference between the "great commission" that God gave Israel and what Jesus gave us Christians, and I think you will be able to work out all these questions.'

Please excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea what this means, and I'm not really interested in devoting my time to solving riddles – especially since to do so would presuppose that I have some special reason for inquiring into Christianity, rather than Islam, Hinduism and so on.

Brooks Davis – No doubt there are reasons other than religious fundamentalism for attitudes to homosexuality in Uganda. I would be very surprised, though, if Christian teaching (or a distortion of it, if you prefer) hadn't been used to legitimise these attitudes and give them greater support than perhaps they would otherwise have had.

After all, when you have passages like 'And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them', justifying such beliefs is surely not too difficult.

Given that slavery was, as you say, tacitly accepted in the New Testament, it seems strange that Jesus should not have thought to condemn it at some point. It might have brought the slave trade to a halt centuries earlier. Although I was under the impression anyway that the slave trade declined largely because it became uneconomical, ewhcih is not to denigrate the efforts of principled Christian abolitionists such as Wilberforce.

'Holiness is intolerant by definition, thus the many declarations of capital punishment in order to maintain purity within His priestly order' – So it's holy to wish death on witches, homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient children, Sabbath breakers, etc., etc...?

I did reply to you a few days ago, but it seems to have gone awol in the ether. Anyway, I would still like to know who these aristos are who you want to govern us. How are they picked? How are they deposed if they're no good? And who decides if they're no good? These sorts of questions to me are fundamental, and which those who decry democracy never seem to answer satisfactorily.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.